ITAT Mumbai held that the Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries before allowing ESOP expenditure, invalidating the PCIT’s revision under section 263.
The Mumbai ITAT partly allowed Trustar Diamond’s appeal, reducing the addition on alleged bogus diamond purchases from 12.5% to 3% to maintain consistency with the assessee’s previous assessment years. The court noted that sales figures were accepted and the 3% restriction reflected the historical disallowance pattern.
Revenue from film distribution was specifically excluded from the definition of “royalty” under both the Act and the India-USA DTAA and interest earned on income tax refund was not effectively connected with any permanent establishment in India and should be taxed at 15% as per Article 11(2) of the India-US DTAA.
ITAT Delhi held that reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of stale information results into change of opinion and the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and reopening is quashed.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits made during the demonetization period were from genuine business cash sales. The addition of Rs. 20.86 lakh by the AO and CIT(A) was based on assumptions and was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that a genuine ₹50 lakh loan received and fully repaid with interest cannot be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68. The addition by AO and CIT(A) was deleted as the assessee provided full banking and repayment evidence.
ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, confirming CIT(A)’s deletion of ₹1.06 crore addition under Section 41(1). The tribunal held that the unsecured loans were used for capital expenditure, not trading purposes, making the addition inapplicable.
ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits of Rs. 17.29 lakh were merely redeposits of earlier withdrawals. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted as the evidence showed no unexplained income.
ITAT Hyderabad held that an ex-parte dismissal by CIT(A) violated section 250(6) as not all grounds were adjudicated. The case was restored for a fresh, reasoned hearing.
ITAT Hyderabad upheld the dismissal of a trust’s appeal as barred by limitation due to a delay of nearly five years. The tribunal emphasized that no reasonable cause was shown to condone the delay under section 249(3).
